Monday, November 28, 2016

If you wonder why the US is in a pickle economically and politically, you can blame the ruling elite. Ever since the United States went off the gold standard and went full blown paper money propped up by the sale of oil in the Middle East, things have gone south.

First of all, people don't understand why their money does not buy what it used to. And, why America constantly gets embroiled in conflict in the Middle East. Let us address these issues which are separate though linked.

In 1973, Pres. Nixon did two things: one he severed the dollar from the gold standard and two he signed the Breton Woods Agreement with the Saudis. The severing of the dollar from the gold standard was based on Keynesian economics which basically says that money will only be worth what the government says it will be worth and central banks will take control of a nation's economics by either restricting or expanding the money supply as they see fit.

So, starting in the 1970s we had something called inflation which was due to the severing of the dollar from gold. This new money was called fiat currency because its value was determined arbitrarily by bankers rather than by the government/nation. This switcheroo was already planned in the 1920s when the US dollar was replaced with Treasury notes or IOU. So, now the central bank could inflate the money supply to be used by the government to go into debt so the government could borrow money from the central bank. This new US dollar no longer belongs to the United States but belongs to the Federal Reserve which is the US central bank. So the US government has to borrow Treasury notes (US dollars) and has to pay back this debt every year and this is the reason income tax was created so that the government could pay back the central bankers with these tax dollars rather than printing it ourselves as the Constitution stipulates. It is not our money, it belongs to the central bank and we have to pay them back.

This ability to inflate the economy has been going up since 1973 and has never gone down. It is essentially the robbing of wealth of the American people by the bankers. Inflation is not a natural process but becomes extortion by the central bankers.

In 1973 Nixon signed that Breton Woods Agreement which stated that the US would protect and defend the Saudi Kingdom if they only sold their oil in US treasury notes (US dollars that belong to the bankers).
And, so this deal with the devil has led to a series of long drawn out unnecessary wars in the Middle East in order to maintain and or fulfill that agreement... starting with the Gulf War in the 90s and including our current involvement in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, also our heavy navy and air presence in that region, all part of the guarantee to continue doing business in dollars.

Of course, this guarantee means that every country in the world must buy dollars in order to buy oil. Which means they have to take their currency and exchange it for dollars in order to buy oil. This means that the world wants lots of dollars and it keeps the value of the dollar high. This also means that the central bankers can print money at a rate that would normally hyper-inflate any other kind of economy. The central bankers and politicians created a demand and supply out of thin air. And, this product is just paper with no inherent value other than what the central bankers say it has.

These are the reasons, we have inflation, worthless money and bloody wars in the Middle East.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson November 29, 1802.

Sadly, this nation is doing just that. The ruling elite are wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. How? Their agenda/goal is being achieved by the rejecting and or deconstructing the individual so that he/she will not work for themselves but work for the state. Now, I understand this could even sound good to a baby Christian but the problem is ... who is the state? This is a fallen world and those at the top are included in this fallen 'state'. The ugly truth is that they are no more caring about the people than is a benevolent Santa Claus who leaves a lump of coal and justifies it by saying "You weren't good enough this year".

According to Paul B.Skousen, in his book - The Naked Socialist, such ruling elites have a strategy to reject and deconstruct the individual. They call themselves: Progressives and or Liberals, or
Pro-Socialists. They use shaming, envy and force to reject and deconstruct the
individual. What exactly is their agenda/goal? Their goal is to create a top down centrally steered society. In practice, "Socialism is government using force to change society." And, they mean to change it so that they control it. Isn't' government by the people? Used to be, but not anymore. Government in many countries including the US is owned/controlled by ruling elites, people with power and wealth and they want to keep it while at the same time lift the guilt they have because of their power and wealth so they proclaim to be for everybody... but everybody has to agree that they no better. The only way to achieve that is by dividing people with emotion and fear and then taking over of course for their own good.

As Skousen writes, these people stir up envy to achieve their goal. Stirring up envy-
Hillary Clinton, "The rich are not paying their fair share..." Barack
Obama, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for
everybody." And, "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just
want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a
chance at success too." Hillary Clinton, " Too many people have made too
much money off eliminating opportunities for caring for people instead
of expanding those." Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Not only our future
economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions
depends on the determination of our government to give employment to
idle men" (Now I know where the idea that white men won't work came
from). Michelle Obama, "The truth is, in order to get things like
universal health care and a revamped education system, then some is
going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that some else can have
more."

Again, as Skousen writes, they use force. Stirring up force - Joe Biden, "You know we're
going to control the insurance companies." Bill Clinton, " A lot of
people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's
being abused, you have to move to limit it." And, "If the personal
freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability
to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Hillary Clinton, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of
the common good." Barack Obama, "I do think at a certain point you've
made enough money."

And, even now readers may find themselves agreeing that all of this doesn't sound so bad. But, how many of you are willing to give up their pie so that someone else can have .... more? You wouldn't willingly but by force you sure would. Skousen provides before page one, the seven pillars of socialism: 1-All powerful rulers, 2- Society divided into castes or classes, 3- All things in common, 4- All things regulated, 5- Compliance is forced, 6- Control of information, and 7- No unalienable rights. For some as Skousen points these pillars represent two different ideas: 1- Beautiful promise and 2- A regime. The naked socialist prefers you to see it as the beautiful promise rather than as the regime. Wonder why? Exactly. Why? Because, there can be no control or sovereignty of the people. No government for and by the people. Why? Because, the elites in government who promote and desire socialism do it only to their benefit and yours too as they show you the way forward using the beautiful promise that you have a right to but will never actually have, because its a lie to begin with. The socialist agenda is based on rights as much as is a democratic republic. The difference is that their rights and your rights are two different things. People are taken in by their rights because they just don't know rights and certainly not even their own. Socialism destroys natural rights. Understanding human rights is to understand socialism -Skousen. America's Founding Father's identified two basic rights: those vested by the government and those natural or unalienable - gifts from the Creator - Skousen. So, vested are those granted by the government which means they can be revoked as easily as granted. Well, that sounds harsh.

No...because vested rights allow people to move as freely as they can without causing harm to others. For instance, the right to drive a car (right taken away when you drive drunk and kill someone), the right to own property house/land (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes... why pay taxes? You pay for the right to ban other's from your property, so you pay for the private right to use it) start a business (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes or fail to follow ordinances, health regulations etc.). There are more but the point is that these fall under free decision to participate in a social contract. What about natural rights as those are the ones that socialism is after. The first natural right is universal, it applies equally to everyone: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in a social contract, this is taken away if you cause someone else to lose their natural rights - i.e. murder someone). The second is that natural rights impose no obligation on another person which means that your right to something cannot be greater than someone else's or cause them to give up their rights for yours. Thirdly, your natural right carries the responsibility to use the natural right respectfully, not to harm or misuse.

Why is the socialist after your natural rights? He/she is because they realize that their position of power is not really theirs to have and to keep. Not when the people are sovereign. They also seem to doubt that the people know how to govern themselves. But, then aren't they themselves a person like any other? The second natural right is the biggest of their problems because they realize that they cannot be over and above anyone as no one can be or certainly if this is a naturally right everyone can be. Actually, it boils down to the idea that no one can or has to give up what is theirs like money or property for the right of someone else to have it. Because, those people would have to give up their money and property as they get it and give it to someone else who has that right. What trumps that cascading event is that your natural right carries responsibility to use the natural right respectfully. In socialism, the government takes away your natural rights to make sure that you follow the 'laws' governing natural rights and they do this declaring that they are in charge of human rights. The naked socialist in the social imagination doesn't trust you because they don't trust themselves with natural rights. They forget that vested rights work with/for natural rights for the common good; and thus, they shouldn't worry or try to take over because in a democratic republic more people are free indeed than under the thumb of a top down socialist government. * Source - The Naked Socialist by Paul B. Skousen. 2012.

Friday, November 18, 2016

The problem with liberals is that they are like artists... they want someone else to pay for their 'art' and their artist lifestyle. The argument given is that art is universal, it must be shared as it is creative and brings new energy. Well, that only applies to the art they like. You see, one man's art is another man's garbage. Sounds harsh... just make a list of your own preferences and where you would spend your money.

Not that art is a bad thing and that it should not be shared. But, not at the cost of everyone. Only at the cost of those who want to share it. But say you... some people can't share their art let alone produce it without money and you know most artists are poor, living in poverty. Wrong. Winston Churchill was a good artists and had a great appreciation for art and its media yet he had his own money to produce his art and share it through years of hard work in service to his country... not the other way around being his country in service to him.

Perhaps, you do not know that many people without 'money' actually make art themselves using what is readily available in nature and the sounds from it are amazing... speaking of the kinds of ingenious instruments created by aboriginal people. Many of their works are displayed in respective galleries or museums. So, you see an artist does not need the government to ensure his creative talents. He/she only needs him/herself and a bit of ingenuity which comes from having to make do with what is available.

Private patrons are a means for artists to become established and grow a long time practice in the past. There is still such a practice. As far as getting art and music and culture from around the world, National Geographic has been doing an incredible job and they operate privately, at least they are not on the public doll as far as I know.

So, don't be fooled by those who put out their hat to the state... but you can indulge those who put out their hat on the streets if you happen to like their art. Its your free choice. So, it should be.

And if liberals are about free love and free art ...guess they don't need the government!

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The victory song of the President Elect Donald Trump was "You Can't Always Get What you Want" by the Rolling Stones and how apropos. In this nation of 300 million + social imaginations, that is the truth. And it is the absolute truth in a fallen world. What you might get as the song goes on to say is what you need.

What is that we want? We want our cake and to eat it too. We want a house, two cars, three kids a dog and a cat. We want to have sex with whoever we want and we don't want to have to identify with any of it if we don't' want to. We want free education and health care. We want money to buy those things we must have like a house, a car or two (SUV preferably) and fine clothes not forgetting organic food at good restaurants.

And who pays? Well, now that is the question. If you have a good paying job and work hard, in time, you could have and some still can have those things (some jobs do pay well but they are few and or in areas of expertise that many people can't achieve -not everyone is cut out to be a neurosurgeon). If you are impatient, you can go into debt (working at a home improvement store or retail shop) and really work hard thereafter. We have been led to believe that education will provide a job and we will get those things we want. But, in a fallen world, we have to be realistic. We might not always get what we want when we want it.

Which brings us to the questionable millennial mindset. Why is that millennials think that someone else has to pay for it, the government but isn't that you/me? Is it because they have been told this is the way forward? Yes, for the most part, they have been told that without a doubt if they get an education a good job will follow. To their surprise, they are slapped with a huge college debt and no job... so,what would you expect. That is the problem. They have been lied to by society and largely the system of education which is more a business than an institution of higher learning. And, led to believe that everyone is college material and everyone can and should go. Not, true. But, then what jobs are left... skilled labor or other jobs that used to pay can no longer support anyone in an inflated economy.

Times are different now that is for certain. We/they forget that jobs have gone overseas and worse is that though we love technology it improves rapidly. Technology in 4 years will be greater and likely the jobs those graduates were counting being educated for or trained for will be gone by the time they graduate. Or this scenario, whatever jobs remain new immigrants come into the country better educated or trained for that job.

The government cannot make promises nor can it guarantee that it will provide people with jobs... let alone cake. Should anyone crumble and cry because they can't have their cake and to eat it too? Though we all want to have cake and to eat it too, we can't make false promises. Now, there is no reason to get depressed because you can't have what you want when you want it since we know you can't always have what you want when you want it.

No one can in this fallen world can have... at least not the way they would want it. Sure it looks like other people are getting their way just the way they wanted it but you cannot know that ... its assumption. And you can bet there assumptions about you too. There are plenty of people worse off than you and better off as well. Again, we all want to be better off. But, in this fallen world, there is no fair way to give everyone what they want when they want it. Not even the possibility to ensure even a fair shot at it free education and health care that will make this fallen world for you a paradise.

Of course, your life is extremely valuable to you and to your loved ones, but not to someone in Timbuktu and neither is it that important to Uncle Sam's bean counters. You want to live longer because you want to live longer. And, so for you an ounce of prevention is worthy a pound of cure, but the math is reversed for the government; healthy people cost more than sick people. Once you hit the point of diminishing returns, the moment you stop paying taxes and start collecting tax payers subsidies ~ Jonah Goldberg. And, thus you become a burden to government and to all tax payers.

When people continue to work past 62 or 65 there is no job for the younger person to step in. Same with housing and creating a burden on the system in terms of energy and even food. There is the argument that seniors keep young people employed as the health care business is a money maker and that is true to a certain point. But, its the government that is largely footing the bill, very few seniors have the big bucks to solely pay for their surgeries. And, very few stay 100 percent healthy past the ago of 80.

Does this mean we should institute a Soylent Green program? Well, I would hope not but things may go that way. Why? Because, in this fallen world (with a growing population) you can't always get what you want and with more people wanting what they want when they want it... it gets expensive. Sounds tragic, sounds like there is no hope. Again, that is because we expect eternal life in paradise here and now. We All want eternal life in paradise that is not possible
here and now, not in this fallen world. What can we do? We can hand over
our troubles to the only one that can take us there ~ Jesus Christ.

Then, we can with His direction take up our cross and move forward here and now. For
the eternal life in paradise is waiting for us...remember eternal life in paradise is not here and now, not in this fallen world. Live for the Lord Jesus Christ the Creator or heaven and earth and store up a treasure in heaven which will be ours in the new Jerusalem a upgraded here and now! ~ See - Matthew/Revelation.

How do we live for Christ? Spread the Good News which is that eternal life awaits those who have faith.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

How can Conservatives fight back? By seizing the moral high ground....

If you are a conservative and a Christian you must be nuts! At least that is what liberals think in their social imagination. And worse... if you are against SCIENCE (as most conservatives/Christians are, right?) then you must be delusional.

You see, Liberals use SCIENCE to defend their relative reprobate (depraved/corrupt) mindset/ behavior with its agendas to make people like minded (like them) and to generate a false notion of reality based on relative views with no bearing or ground in any absolute. Why do they do this? Because SCIENCE (created by man) is as fluid as they are; SCIENCE changes (as man does... but really he just goes in circles. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun) whereas God and His word don't' change (and this is what Solomon knew by pointing man in his fleshly loop). SCIENCE for the lef/ liberal/ progressive is the perfect truth for them as it is always changing... and thus, they use it to prop up their reprobate behavior.

The Left/Liberal/Progressive hates absolutes. That is why they have created an artificial high ground with invented virtues. They use this so called moral high ground to charge conservatives with evil, with hatred, with intolerance, with mediocrity in the face of their great SCIENCE. They use words that we all know but they use them to in a way to justify their corruption. What is that? The legimate right to justify their corruption, their guilt, their deviate depraved life styles.

They use words like toleration, diversity, individual spirituality, hater, racist, goodness and badness. By using such words they have created a false moral high ground so that conservatives feel lower, feel under their foot like thrown out gum, so that conservatives feel that they are bad and not good. Thus, conservatives are made to or rather forced to fight from the low ground uphill.

Conservatives have to create or put forward rather their moral high ground which in fact is the true high ground. Conservatives have values which are based on absolute truths.

These words can be used as 'ammunition' by conservatives against liberals. The pen is sharper than a sword. The Word of God is mightier than a two edged sword (Hebrews 4:12) And, if conservatives are wise, they will fight not only by the word of their testimony but also in the style of Saul Alinsky... fight them on their own ground in their own backyard; arm themselves in like mindedness.

Why do they do this...Leftists/Liberals and Progressives? They want to be FREE as in unleashed. This is their ultimate goal first and foremost and certainly always which means that in order to be free they will and must make you feel like nothing, like a mindless idiot for your faith, your maturity, your strength etc. And, if you are not in favor of their kind of freedom which is freedom from absolute truths, then you must be a fool.

What are absolute truths? Well, the absolute truth certainly has nothing to do with random cosmic events, the idea of Darwinian evolution and or nature ordered chaos. Why? Because random events, the idea of evolution and what can be appear to be ordered chaos changes in man's mind from generation to generation as to what really happened and why. How? This is a fallen world... corrupted and it has yet to reboot.

What does the Conservative want in this fallen world? Largely, to be left to his/her faith and to be left alone in his/her relationship with the Creator, left to mind his own business and in his/her own way. This too is a kind of freedom but one that is bordered by faith, courage, integrity, prosperity, discipline, strength, patience, perseverance, stability and maturity. And, let's add to that with forgiving, respectful and brave. From where do these words come from? From the social imagination touched by the Creator that in fact there exists an absolute truth from which all other absolutes flow. This absolute truth is that there is One who was and is and will be... The Creator of all things seen and unseen and He has the con.

Does that suggest idiocracy? Imagining the Creator as an absolute being as the single most eternal being so huge that man disappears in His nostril. This vastness, this immensity in man's mind is what motives man to do what is right by the Creator and thus by man. This kind of social imagination does not negate science as God given tool to understand the Creator and His creation. This kind of social imagination also realizes that there is nothing new under the sun here and now because of this fallen 'program' world. But, in that realization is wisdom and Solomon was/is the wisest man in this fallen world. Why? Because, in this realization is the greatest revelation of all... that such a fallen world is yet bound to the absolute truth.

Friday, November 4, 2016

The racist in the selective liberal social imagination is the person that they are not which means its 'you' the person that they point out as the racist. Who is the racist according to the liberal social imagination? He/she is the person that does not tolerate liberal ideas, does not prefer liberal ideas, does not mix with, does not live near, does not hire, does not listen to, does not share with, does not vacation with, does not drive with, does not work with and does not want to ever be seen with someone who is not them. This has nothing to do with the color of skin. Yes, really!

What does it have to do with if their liberal racism is not based on color? It has to do with ideology and its mantra; hence it has to do with conformity, as in sameness and with following orders, and with doing what you are told. It has to do who you are living with, showering with, and even toileting with. It has to do with showing no initiative other than the one they give you and certainly, you must never show any smarts as in individual desire and determination to be a leader.

Racism is not about you in the sense of what you prefer to be doing, and who you prefer to be hanging with. How could it be? In that sense, everyone would be a racist. Yes, even liberal elites would be and they are. But they don't want you to know that. That use the word as a label to demonize their opponents. They know that Americans are sensitive to accusations of racism. Americans have a guilt complex and liberals use this against people so that people will move in the direction they want them to. So real racism is not their game, cause they are just as much a racist as anyone who has preferences. Again, its a label to demonize their opponents in the public market place to take and get the advantages that they want for themselves which are positions of power, prestige and privilege.

Evidence of this is observed in the African American black community today. It is far worse off now than when the liberal war on poverty began in the 60s. If that social welfare agenda was so great and so cleverly engineered and steered by them why isn't racism and poverty gone? Because, they the selective liberal elite is still alive and well - the true racist.

We forget that a fast majority of democrats were southern 'liberal elite' racists in favor of segregation that including as well as a large majority of slave holders in the south. This fact (s) have been scrubbed from history and yet the agenda is still there which was and continues to be to enslave others for the benefit of an 'their' liberal elite aristocracy. The agenda no longer just in the south. It is wherever the liberal elites are... live and work. That is why we see them against borders, against any document (s) that describes clearly what this country is and who it is in terms of the people.

It is in their business to retain labels from the past as if they disagree with them but they don't. They also create and use new labels because labels can be used to their advantage. It is the great switcheroo... They want people to forget who they are and they start with who they want you to think they were and then they make themselves into who they are today. Simultaneously, they want you to forget who you are and they start with who they want you to think you are and they make you into who they want you to be today. Hence, their 'noble' approach to this is ~ EDUCATION! indoctrination... shhhhhhh

Be wary, you might wake up and find out you are a racist though you never thought you ever were or ever wanted to be. But, you got selected!

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

First a question - Has the quality of the product kept pace with inflation? NO!!!

"Let them eat cake" was a phrase that was supposed to have come from the mouth of Marie Antoniette, the beautiful princess in love with diamonds and wealth. The fact is, she never said exactly that. As far as we know, the saying came from another similar phrase put out by Rousseau's illustration of a princess who was indifferent to the plight of the poor. And so, because of her known attitude and or life loving liberal character, it became her 'hashtag'.

The saying in French means to let them eat buns-rolls. The fact is, Marie Antoniette was probably not totally indifferent to the poor, she just did not understand economics. She thought if she could have so could everyone else. Its the limousine socialist liberal mindset. She was not the only one in France living the good life so to speak. But, eventually, being foreign born, she would take the fall.

As it was put forward during her time of limousine socialists, according to French law to feed the poor, the view and agenda was to subdue the profit making French bakeries. But, what happened as the law was followed was that bakeries went into financial ruin. No one was left to pay and the rich would not pay for poor quality bread/buns which no longer could be made by the bakers since they had no many to pay for any quality ingredients since there were so many not paying for their buns and those that could pay would not pay for poor quality.

The entire system was jeopardized. Hence, Marie lost her head... not necessarily by the rich and elite (though they gave the decree) but because of their liberal mindset. She was beheaded by the masses who demanded that the bakeries come back even if they could not afford to eat cake... at least the bakery was and something was in the bakery they could buy. And, someone higher up had to take the fall for poisoning the top positions in the French royalty.

As Goldberg writes on page 174, "Let them eat cake' has come to symbolize how rich do-gooders think rich conservatives see the world and how rich do-gooders screw things up by creating compassionate schemes that only make things worse for the poor. Goldberg asks us in his book [The Tyranny of Cliches...] to remember the housing laws put forward to combat homelessness. In Washington, D.C. the city council passed an ordinance in 1984, guaranteeing shelter for everyone. Within tow years the number of homeless families living in government shelters rose 500 percent. One woman called D.C. authorities telling them she had just enough savings to cover the flight for her and her children and asked them to reserve her free housing.

Not that anyone wants a woman and her children on the streets but the point is that once everyone gets wind of a free house and who wouldn't want that especially when there will be fewer and fewer people able to pay for houses period as the quality goes down but the price goes up due to inflation. Which is not caused by the rich but by the middle class who start demanding their life style be like the rich and begin spending on credit for things they could not afford as 'true ' middle class. They want their cake too!

Who then gets the bill for those houses? Remember, the rich are really a minority and their money is kept under lock and key because they are a minority and know it. So, whose money gets used in the end - yours/mine. Yes, taxes for everyone and soon everyone will run out of money since only the elite minority are smart enough to not pay and get out while the getting is good. Somehow, liberal rich do-gooders seem to forget that. They seem to think that everyone will jump on board with their liberal do-gooder agenda. And, maybe many would but if the rich do-gooders are few then who pays? Again... you/me.

Yet, the rich do-gooders still claim to be the voice of the people so that they can control the politicians who will promise them to keep their minority money in hiding... a good place is in a foundation i.e. And though the rich do-gooder feels guilty he/she feels justified in protecting his/her own. They feel better when they call out "Let them eat cake too". Little do they know that by doing so, they make matters worse. Why? Again, the government's money 'yours/mine' will be used not theirs.

Who are these rich do-gooders? Aren't they the rich cooperate executives? Some are and some aren't. The crop is really in Hollywood as Goldberg points. The people communicate to them that they are special though many may not even have higher education. They are treated like royalty by the people, and perhaps it truly is the people that want them to yell and like when they do yell... "Let them eat cake". It seems to make it right that their nobility speaks for them.

In fact, its all in the social imagination, isn't it? The rich, the middle class (wanna be rich) and the poor and those on their way down to being poor seem to be as much a part of their own problems as anyone and everyone. And, when the system looks like it will collapse, there will be a head to be lost, someone will be the scape-goat for all.

The people created an image ...
Because of the signs it was given to
perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on
the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been
wounded by the sword and yet had lived. The second beast was permitted
to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image would
also speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed. And the
second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free
and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their
forehead,…Revelation 13:14-16.

About Me

A Godly Woman

Reveling in the Word

As a Christian Sociologist, a defender of the faith I am but no contender of it as in fighting over it nor fighting people for it. There is no reason to fight over or about anything... only to love. This is realized when one embraces the knowledge that Jesus Christ came to die for our sins and give us life eternal. Yes, there is a fight and it is ours. When called, to be chosen and to be and remain faithful.

Reveling in the Word of God brings me joy, peace and rest. It is not to woo anyone with my knowledge or great argument for faith in a creator and salvation. For all who are called and chosen will hear the Word of God for themselves and be wooed by it! And, be faithful to it.